|
JAPRA AK RASE @ RASEK v. SARAWAK ENERGY BERHAD & ANOR
INDUSTRIAL COURT, SARAWAK
ANI AK SOLEP
AWARD NO. 611 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 8/4-565/12]
22 JUNE 2017
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had done the internal wiring, installed the meter for the premises of Injew and failed to act and report on Injew's complaints of not receiving his electricity - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the Party Joined had proven this charge on a balance of probability - Whether the claimant's dismissal had been carried out with just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had failed to follow the company's procedures by failing to disconnect the electricity after receiving the Service Notifications, which had led to the meters being installed and connected in an unsafe manner - Evidence adduced - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the Party Joined had succeeded in proving these charges against him - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse
EVIDENCE: Admissions - Party Joined admitting to being the claimant's employer - Whether the case against the Respondent ought to be struck off - Determination of who had been the claimant's employer - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of
EVIDENCE: Burden of proof - Whether the Party Joined had discharged its burden of proving the charges against the claimant - Evidence adduced - Evaluation of - What the Party Joined should have done - Effect of
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Jurisdiction - Party Joined, although the claimant's employer, not named in the Ministerial Reference - Whether this claim against the Party Joined ought to be struck off on that ground alone - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(1) & 30(5)
NUR AZMAN REDZUAN v. SELINSING GOLD MINE MANAGER SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD DUSUKI MOKHTAR
AWARD NO. 871 OF 2017 [CASE NO: 11/4-622/14]
20 JUNE 2017
DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Whether the claimant had incited, fomented and instigated the employees of the company to sign the letter dated 2 September 2013 - Contents of the letter - Whether it had threatened the management with illegal assembly and press presence - Effect of - Whether the said letter had been written by the claimant - Evidence adduced - Whether this charge had been proven against the claimant
DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Whether the claimant had instigated the employees not to perform their normal duties thus causing disruption at the gold processing plant and causing loss to the company - Factors to consider - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether this charge had been proven against him - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Whether the claimant had on the material dates incited, fomented and instigated the employees of the processing plant on duty, not to report for duty on their scheduled shifts which had left the gold processing plant unable to operate on the said dates - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the charge had been proven against him
DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Whether the claimant had on the relevant dates, wilfully and purposely incited, fomented and instigated the employees of the processing plant who were on duty, to shut down the gold processing plant without the authorisation from management - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the charge had been proven against him - Whether his dismissal had been carried out without just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Whether the threat of mass-resignation had been considered an act of disobedience, insubordination and misconduct - Factors to consider - Whether it had constituted a serious misconduct which had justified the claimant's dismissal
|
